Title:Affluenza Director: Scott Simon Release year: 1997 What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The central argument of the film is affluenza or overconsumption. It is an unhappy condition of overload, debt, anxiety and waste resulting from the strong-minded pursuit of more. People have more storage for garbage. People are buying lot more than before. Companies are using different media to attract consumers. Advertisements are 2-3 page of the newspaper. Shopping malls become the public space for hand around. People work more, save less and consume more. People have more money but they are not happy. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? The film mentioned several sustainability problems like deforestation, air pollution, water pollution, global warming. To create more landfill, people cut down trees. The companies are targeting the children. Therefore, children are the biggest consumers. This film also mentioned that people fly more than they used to. Beside sustainable problem, overconsumption also affects people socially and economically. People are facing bankruptcy because of using credit cards to buy stuff but could not pay the bill. Many couples are arguing about money, and getting divorce. Family members are not having connection between them. The gap between rich and poor are increasing in the society. Many people are very poor to buy food. Many poor people are joining gangs to get more stuff. Politician paying more attentions to the economic growth, but they are not caring for the other social problems. Therefore, the measurement of economic success GDP (gross domestic product) goes up, do not take count for life value, but GPI (genuine progress indicator) falling. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? It was interesting to know that, around 1987 US had more shopping malls then schools. To make the children over consumer, companies are coming up with games those were designed such way that inspire the children to become shoppers. In some schools, children had to watch certain news channels. Therefore, the advertisers are paying more money to show their commercials in those channels. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? In the beginning of the film, it mentioned peoples are getting physical, emotional sickness from the overconsumption, but it did not elaborate on that. I could understand how overconsumption could be related to mental sickness, but how it is effecting the physical health directly? What audiences does the film best address? Why? I think everybody should watch this film especially the new generation. The parents should watch it too because they could encourage their children to buy less. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? The film could have added some suggestion how the economy of a country still could be good without its citizens to be over consumer. In the beginning of the film, it mentioned how overconsumption is a disease. The film could have talked little more about that and could have showed scientific studies on that. I also believe that overconsumption is a mental problem, because I am trying hard to stop myself from buying lot of items, but whenever I see thinks on sale or very interesting, I can not stop myself from buying. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. Some young girls made a play named “Barbie get real” that focused overconsumption, then give all the money to the charity. This kind of act could encourage and inspire other young generation. Consumer credit council cut peoples credit cards that people could not use them and fall in depth. People need to alter the pattern of the consumption. People are celebrating “buy nothing day” in November 29th. Co-housing families produce less garbage; the people are able to cut down the consumption and they become happier. We should reuse and recycle material. We should producing goods that last longer. The government should try to narrow the gap between poor and rich. We should commit ourselves to economic stability instead of expansion. We should build stronger communities and work less. People need to know the difference between the stander of living and the quality of life. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? I wanted to find more on affluenza. It could lead to feelings of worthlessness and dissatisfaction rather than experiences of a 'better life', and that these symptoms may be usefully captured with the metaphor of a disease. With this problem, wealthy peoples are also unhappy and are hungry only for more wealth. They are unable to get pleasure from the things they buy and that increasingly material things may come to dominate their time and thoughts to the detriment of personal relationships and to feelings of happiness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza
Director: Scott Simon
Release year: 1997
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the film is affluenza or overconsumption. It is an unhappy condition of overload, debt, anxiety and waste resulting from the strong-minded pursuit of more. People have more storage for garbage. People are buying lot more than before. Companies are using different media to attract consumers. Advertisements are 2-3 page of the newspaper. Shopping malls become the public space for hand around. People work more, save less and consume more. People have more money but they are not happy.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film mentioned several sustainability problems like deforestation, air pollution, water pollution, global warming. To create more landfill, people cut down trees. The companies are targeting the children. Therefore, children are the biggest consumers. This film also mentioned that people fly more than they used to. Beside sustainable problem, overconsumption also affects people socially and economically. People are facing bankruptcy because of using credit cards to buy stuff but could not pay the bill. Many couples are arguing about money, and getting divorce. Family members are not having connection between them. The gap between rich and poor are increasing in the society. Many people are very poor to buy food. Many poor people are joining gangs to get more stuff. Politician paying more attentions to the economic growth, but they are not caring for the other social problems. Therefore, the measurement of economic success GDP (gross domestic product) goes up, do not take count for life value, but GPI (genuine progress indicator) falling.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
It was interesting to know that, around 1987 US had more shopping malls then schools. To make the children over consumer, companies are coming up with games those were designed such way that inspire the children to become shoppers. In some schools, children had to watch certain news channels. Therefore, the advertisers are paying more money to show their commercials in those channels.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
In the beginning of the film, it mentioned peoples are getting physical, emotional sickness from the overconsumption, but it did not elaborate on that. I could understand how overconsumption could be related to mental sickness, but how it is effecting the physical health directly?
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I think everybody should watch this film especially the new generation. The parents should watch it too because they could encourage their children to buy less.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
The film could have added some suggestion how the economy of a country still could be good without its citizens to be over consumer. In the beginning of the film, it mentioned how overconsumption is a disease. The film could have talked little more about that and could have showed scientific studies on that. I also believe that overconsumption is a mental problem, because I am trying hard to stop myself from buying lot of items, but whenever I see thinks on sale or very interesting, I can not stop myself from buying.
What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
Some young girls made a play named “Barbie get real” that focused overconsumption, then give all the money to the charity. This kind of act could encourage and inspire other young generation. Consumer credit council cut peoples credit cards that people could not use them and fall in depth. People need to alter the pattern of the consumption. People are celebrating “buy nothing day” in November 29th. Co-housing families produce less garbage; the people are able to cut down the consumption and they become happier. We should reuse and recycle material. We should producing goods that last longer. The government should try to narrow the gap between poor and rich. We should commit ourselves to economic stability instead of expansion. We should build stronger communities and work less. People need to know the difference between the stander of living and the quality of life.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
I wanted to find more on affluenza. It could lead to feelings of worthlessness and dissatisfaction rather than experiences of a 'better life', and that these symptoms may be usefully captured with the metaphor of a disease. With this problem, wealthy peoples are also unhappy and are hungry only for more wealth. They are unable to get pleasure from the things they buy and that increasingly material things may come to dominate their time and thoughts to the detriment of personal relationships and to feelings of happiness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza